7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala.
8.  The applicant was declared bankrupt on 2 September 1993 by the District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) of Hyvinkää. J., a lawyer practising in Helsinki, was appointed by a court order to act as the official receiver to his estate.
9.  By a written notice, dated 16 September 1993, J. requested the postal service to send all the mail addressed to the applicant to the law office of J. The day before, on 15 September 1993, a meeting was held between the debtor, i.e. the applicant, and the official receiver in the law office of J. According to the Government, it was agreed that the applicant’s mail be transferred to the office and handled so that the official mail was opened, whereas the private mail was put aside to be further transmitted to the applicant. According to the applicant, no such agreement was reached.
10.  The applicant contacted a lawyer at the postal service who informed him that the personal mail of a person declared bankrupt should not be transferred to the official receiver. The applicant received his mail from 23 September 1993 onwards.
11.  While the mail was being transferred to the law office (between 16 and 23 September 2003), J. received and opened a letter sent by an insurance company and addressed to the applicant. The letter was sent to the applicant in an official envelope of the company and signed by the representative of the company’s legal department. Apparently the letter concerned a valuation of an apartment owned by the applicant’s ex-wife.
12.  On 4 June 1996, the applicant requested the police to investigate the matter. During the police investigation J. said that the applicant had sent him a message after the meeting of 15 September 1993, withdrawing his consent to the transfer of mail and that on 22 or 23 September 1993 the applicant requested the postal service to transfer the mail back to his own address as he considered that the transfer of mail to the law office had been unlawful.
13.  On 22 July 1996, finding that the requested prosecution of the alleged offence had become time-barred, a prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute.
14.  The applicant then instituted civil proceedings against J., requesting that J. be ordered to return all missing letters to the applicant and, failing which, he be ordered to pay 21,911 Finnish Marks (FIM) (approximately 3,685 Euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as the applicant’s legal fees and expenses. The proceedings were based on the fact that J. had opened the letter sent by the insurance company.
15.  A legal counsel of the postal service who was heard before the District Court of Espoo (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) stated that the postal service applied the principles that were included in the repealed Postal Service Decree (postiliikenneasetus, posttrafikförordning; 692/1980) concerning the sorting of mail belonging to estates in respect of which an official receiver had been appointed by the court. According to him, it was a duty of the postal service to sort the debtor’s mail and put aside official mail belonging to the estate. In cases where the official nature of the mail was not clear, post offices decided on a case by case basis where to send the mail.
16.  On 7 February 1997 the District Court rejected all the claims submitted by the applicant, finding that both J. and the postal service had acted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act (konkurssisääntö, konkursstadga; 759/1991 as in force at the relevant time), and the established practice and internal instructions of the postal service concerning the sorting of mail. The applicant was ordered to pay FIM 27,487 (approximately EUR 4,620) in compensation for J.’s legal expenses. The District Court reasoned its decision, inter alia, as follows:
“The District Court agrees with the view of [J.] in that the official receiver has, in accordance with Section 50, subsection 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, a right to request that the debtor’s mail be received by the official receiver, excluding the debtor’s personal mail.
...
[J.] denied that the estate was in the possession of any other mail addressed to [the applicant], excluding a letter from the insurance company [P.]. That letter was related to the clarification of the assets and debts of [the applicant] and, thus, was included in the documents belonging to the estate. The estate was not obliged to return any of the material which belonged to it.
...
In the light of the evidence, [J.] has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.
The [applicant’s] claims are rejected as a whole.”
17.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki which, on 15 January 1998, upheld the District Court’s decision. The applicant was ordered to pay J.’s costs of FIM 2,500 (approximately EUR 420). On 2 July 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.